[PATCH] ARM: imx: change mx51.h into mx5x.h
R00091 at freescale.com
Wed Oct 20 09:15:53 EDT 2010
>From: Uwe Kleine-König [mailto:u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:09 AM
>To: Nguyen Dinh-R00091; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; linux at arm.linux.org.uk; s.hauer at pengutronix.de;
>grant.likely at secretlab.ca; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; daniel at caiaq.de; Zhang Lily-R58066;
>valentin.longchamp at epfl.ch
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: imx: change mx51.h into mx5x.h
>On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 02:35:50PM +0300, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>> On 10 Oct 20, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> > Hello Dinh,
>> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:57:03PM -0500, Dinh.Nguyen at freescale.com wrote:
>> > > From: Dinh Nguyen <Dinh.Nguyen at freescale.com>
>> > >
>> > > In preparation for submitting i.MX53 support, change mx51.h to
>> > > mx5x.h so that mx5x.h can contain MX53 information as well.
>> > Last time I found time to clean up the imx ports I worked hard that e.g.
>> > mx27 machines only used MX27_ prefixed symbols, not the MX2x_ ones. (I
>> > don't remember off-hand if I was done, so there might be a few users
>> > left.)
>> > I'd prefer to just add an mx53.h instead.
>> Perhaps this is a good time to ask the question - Why?
>> mx53.h will duplicate (almost) everything in mx51.h. And any fixes made to
>> mx51.h won't make it to mx53.h
>Yep, that's the pro side of having a single header file for both mx51
>and mx53. On the negative side we have:
> - When changing mx5x.h you always have to check (now) two reference
> manuals, later maybe more.
> - When Freescale decides to create a (say) mx56 that is totally
> different, you can be happy not to have constants starting with MX5X.
> (This happened to the MX2X constants when Freescale created mx25, not
> to mention mx23 and mx28.)
>I admit that *now* it would be easier to just rename mx51.h to mx5x.h,
>but for the long run keeping mx51.h is better, I'm sure.
I guess I should also ask this question now. I was planning to add support for mx53 kernel that will be binary compatible with mx51. I'm guessing that you are not in support of that idea?
>Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
>Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
More information about the linux-arm-kernel